MDL No. 875 (W.D. Wis. May. 29, 2012)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. Vi)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

May 29, 2012

MDL No. 875 (W.D. Wis. May. 29, 2012)

Opinion

MDL No. 875

05-29-2012

In re: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI)

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER

The transferee court in this litigation has, in the actions on this conditional remand order: (1) severed all claims for punitive or exemplary damages; and (2) advised the Panel that coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with respect to the remaining claims have been completed and that remand to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. §1407(a), is appropriate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all claims in the action(s) on this conditional remand order except the severed damages claims be remanded to its/their respective transferor court(s).

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee clerk for filing shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnish the Clerk for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to be remanded and all necessary copies of any pleadings or other matter filed so as to enable said Clerk to comply with the order of remand.

FOR THE PANEL:

________________

Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

SCHEDULE FOR CRO

TRANSFEREE TRANSFEROR

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦DIST ¦DIV. ¦C.A.NO. ¦DIST ¦DIV. ¦C.A.NO. ¦CASE CAPTION ¦ +------+------+---------+------+------+---------+------------------------------¦ ¦PAE ¦2 ¦11-60006 ¦AZ ¦2 ¦94-00867 ¦ANDERSON et al v. ACSINC et al¦ +------+------+---------+------+------+---------+------------------------------¦ ¦PAE ¦2 ¦10-68122 ¦ILC ¦1 ¦99-01263 ¦GOEKEN v. AC AND S INC et al ¦ +------+------+---------+------+------+---------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦KINSER et al v. ANCHOR PACKING¦ ¦PAE ¦2 ¦08-92034 ¦ILC ¦2 ¦94-02282 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦COMPANY et al ¦ +------+------+---------+------+------+---------+------------------------------¦ ¦PAE ¦2 ¦08-92066 ¦ILC ¦2 ¦96-02071 ¦GEHRT v. ACANDS, INC. et al ¦ +------+------+---------+------+------+---------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦WRIGHT v. AW CHESTERTON ¦ ¦PAE ¦2 ¦11-66748 ¦ILN ¦1 ¦11-01954 ¦COMPANY ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦et al ¦ +------+------+---------+------+------+---------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦CHEEK v. JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE,¦ ¦PAE ¦2 ¦11-60071 ¦MD ¦1 ¦11-00013 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦INC. et al ¦ +------+------+---------+------+------+---------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦KRUMROY et al v. HOBART ¦ ¦PAE ¦2 ¦09-70150 ¦NCW ¦1 ¦09-00167 ¦BROTHERS ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦COMPANY et al ¦ +------+------+---------+------+------+---------+------------------------------¦ ¦PAE ¦2 ¦09-80041 ¦NCW ¦1 ¦09-00224 ¦SUTTLE et al v. 3M COMPANY et ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦al ¦ +------+------+---------+------+------+---------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ANDERSON v. AW CHESTERTON ¦ ¦PAE ¦2 ¦11-63482 ¦WIE ¦1 ¦11-00061 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦COMPANY et al ¦ +------+------+---------+------+------+---------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦BUSHMAKER v. A.W. CHESTERTON ¦ ¦PAE ¦2 ¦10-61116 ¦WIW ¦3 ¦09-00726 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦COMPANY et al ¦ +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

* - denotes that the civil action has been severed.

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

KINSER, et al.

ANCHOR PACKING CO., et al.

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the Central

District of Illinois,

Case No. 94-02282

E.D. PA No. 2:08-cv-92034

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

AND NOW, this 15th day of May, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that, upon review of the above captioned case under MDL-875 Administrative Order no. 18 (01-md-875, doc. no. 6197), the Court finds that, as to the above-captioned case:

a. ) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/md1875d.asp).
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 5).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant CBS Corp. was granted in part and denied in part. See doc. no. 120.

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any trial-related motions in limine (including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial are:
i. CBS Corporation
h. ) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims

for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Defendant CBS Corp. ("CBS") has argued to the MDL Court that a suggestion of remand of this case is premature at this point. See doc. nos. 121, 122.
First, CBS argues that because Judge Strawbridge has not explicitly approved remand of this case, and because Plaintiff has not listed specific reasons why the case should be remanded, remand is premature. The MDL Court rejects these arguments, because cases are routinely remanded without magistrate judges' express approval. The language that CBS cites indicating that a "mediator" must approve remand does not apply to Magistrate Judge Strawbridge, who is not a "mediator" in this case. See doc. no. 121 at 23. Additionally, it is the policy of the MDL Court to suggest remand of cases that have gone through the summary judgment stage. (Of course, the option remains open for counsel to consent to having a trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as discussed infra.)
CBS also argues that Daubert motions are outstanding. Specifically, there is an outstanding Daubert motion that will affect fifty cases in MDL 875 in the cases represented by Cascino Vaughan Law Offices. However, both Plaintiffs' counsel and Defense counsel in the Cascino Vaughan cases chose the fifty cases to which that Daubert motion would apply, and the present case is not on that list. Defendant can bring any outstanding pretrial evidentiary issues to the attention of the transferor court, which, as the trial court for this case, would be best equipped to decide such issues in advance of trial.

Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-captioned case should be REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois for resolution of all matters pending within this case except punitive damages.

The Court finds that the issue of punitive damages must be resolved at a future date with regard to the entire MDL-875 action, and therefore any claims for punitive or exemplary damages are hereby SEVERED from this case and retained by the MDL-875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See In re Collins, 233 F.3d 809, 810 (3d Cir. 2000) ("It is responsible public policy to give priority to compensatory claims over exemplary punitive damage windfalls; this prudent conservation more than vindicates the Panel's decision to withhold punitive damage claims on remand."); see also In re Roberts, 178 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 1999).

Alternatively, parties in the below-listed cases have seven (7) days within which to consent to a trial before an Article III or Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In such an event, if consent is granted, a trial will be scheduled within sixty (60) days, on a date convenient to the parties in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the Suggestion of Remand will be vacated.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 2011

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875

Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/md1875d.asp).

Specific information regarding the history of a specific case while it was in the MDL 875 Court can be found in the Suggestion of Remand (above) that the MDL Court submitted to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in connection with its Order.

History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

MDL 875, In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, involves issues relating to personal injury damages caused by asbestos products. It currently consists of about 12,000 cases transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which has been transferring cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania since 1991. Each case typically consists of claims by multiple plaintiffs against multiple defendants. Since its inception, the litigation has involved more than 100,000 cases and up to ten million claims, including land-based and maritime claims ("MARDOC").

Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp) in 2008, the Court initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy to facilitate the processing of cases. The policy involves giving newly transferred cases scheduling orders; setting cases for settlement conferences; having motion hearings; and remanding trial-ready cases to transferor courts, or, in the alternative, holding trials in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (if so requested by the parties).

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presiding Officer on substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875n.asp). This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case caption, subject matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends this spreadsheet to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those already addressed by the MDL-875 Court.

Other options available to assist the Transferor Court with legal research include searchable databases created by LexisNexis and Westlaw. Directions on how to access these databases can be found on http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875n.asp.

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

You may contact the Presiding Judicial Officer (Judge_Eduardo_Robreno@paed.uscourts.gov), the MDL 875 asbestos law clerk (Michele_Ventura@paed.uscourts.gov or (267) 299-7422), or the Clerk's Office ((267) 299-7012) for further assistance.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee

The Intercircuit Assignment Committee of the Judicial Conference, under the leadership of Judge J. Frederick Motz of the District of Maryland, can assist in the identification and assignment of a senior judge from another District who is ready, willing and able to preside over the trial of this case. If appropriate, please contact Judge Motz at Judge_J_Frederick_Motz@mdd.uscourts.gov or (410) 962-0782.

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

GEHRT

AC & S, INC., et al.[/p]

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the Central

District of Illinois, Case

No. 96-02071

E.D. PA No. 2:08-cv-92066

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

AND NOW, this 15th day of May, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that, upon review of the above captioned case under MDL-875 Administrative Order no. 18 (01-md-875, doc. no. 6197), the Court finds that, as to the above-captioned case:

a. ) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl87 5d.asp).
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 5).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant CBS Corp. was granted in part and denied in part. See doc. no. 120.

3
Page 9

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any trial-related motions in limine (including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial are:

i. CBS Corporation
ii. Union Carbide Corporation
iii. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

Page 10

h.) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Defendant CBS Corp. ("CBS") has argued to the MDL Court that a suggestion of remand of this case is premature at this point.
First, CBS argues that because Judge Strawbridge has not explicitly approved remand of this case, and because Plaintiff has not listed specific reasons why the case should be remanded, remand is premature. The MDL Court rejects these arguments, because cases are routinely remanded without magistrate judges' express approval. The language that CBS cites indicating that a "mediator" must approve remand does not apply to Magistrate Judge Strawbridge, who is not a "mediator" in this case. Additionally, it is the policy of the MDL Court to suggest remand of cases that have gone through the summary judgment stage. (Of course, the option remains open for counsel to consent to having a trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as discussed infra.)
CBS also argues that Daubert motions are outstanding. Specifically, there is an outstanding Daubert motion that will affect fifty cases in MDL 875 in the cases represented by Cascino Vaughan Law Offices. However, both Plaintiffs' counsel and Defense counsel in the Cascino Vaughan cases chose the fifty cases to which that Daubert motion would apply, and the present case is not on that list. Defendant can bring any outstanding pretrial evidentiary issues to the attention of the transferor court, which, as the trial court for this case, would be best equipped to expeditiously decide such issues in advance of trial.

Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-captioned case should be REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Central District: of Illinois for resolution of all matters pending within this case except punitive damages.

Alternatively, parties in the below-listed cases have seven (7) days within which to consent to a trial before an Article III or Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In such an event, if consent is granted, a trial will be scheduled within sixty (60) days, on a date convenient to the parties in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the Suggestion of Remand will be vacated.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
?P?

________________

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 2011

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875

Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).

History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12 (see http://www.paed,uscourts.gov/mdl875d,asp) in 2008, the Court initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy to facilitate the processing of cases. The policy involves giving newly transferred cases scheduling orders; setting cases for settlement conferences; having motion hearings; and remanding trial-ready cases to transferor courts, or, in the alternative, holding trials in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (if so requested by the parties).

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee

The Intercircuit Assignment Committee of the Judicial Conference, under the leadership of Judge J. Frederick Motz of the District of Maryland, can assist in the identification and assignment of a senior judge from another District who is ready, willing and able to preside over the trial of this case. If appropriate, please contact Judge Motz at Judge J_Frederick_Motz@mdd.uscourts.gov or (410) 962-0782.

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

KRUMROY, et al.

HOBART BROTHERS COMPANY et al.

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the Western

District of North Carolina,

Case No. 09-00167

E.D. PA No. 09-cv-70150

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that, upon review of the above captioned case under MDL-875 Administrative Order no. 18 (01-md-875, doc. no. 6197), the Court finds that, as to the above-captioned case;

a. ) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 22).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. No motions for summary judgment were filed.

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any motions trial-related in limine (including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial are:

i. Honeywell International
ii. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

h. ) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-captioned case should be REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina for resolution of all matters pending within this case except punitive damages.

The Court finds that the issue of punitive damages must be resolved at a future date with regard to the entire MDL-875 action, and therefore any claims for punitive or exemplary damages are hereby SEVERED from this case and retained by the MDL-875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See In re Collins. 233 F.3d 809, 810 (3d Cir. 2000) ("It is responsible public policy to give priority to compensatory claims over exemplary punitive damage windfalls; this prudent conservation more than vindicates the Panel's decision to withhold punitive damage claims on remand."); see also In re Roberts, 178 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 1999) .

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 2011

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875

Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).

History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp') in 2008, the Court initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy to facilitate the processing of cases. The policy involves giving newly transferred cases scheduling orders; setting cases for settlement conferences; having motion hearings; and remanding trial-ready cases to transferor courts, or, in the alternative, holding trials in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (if so requested by the parties).

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presiding Officer on substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875n.asp ). This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case caption, subject matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends this spreadsheet to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those already addressed by the MDL-875 Court.

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

SUTTLE, et al.

3M COMPANY, et al.

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the Western

District of North Carolina

Case No. 09-00224

E.D. PA No. 2:09-cv-80041

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

a. ) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.aov/mdl87 5d.asp).
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 8).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. No motions for summary judgment were filed and ruled upon.

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any motions trial-related in limine (including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial are:

i. Daniel International Corporation
ii. Fluor Enterprises, Inc.
iii. Georgia-Pacific Corporation
iv. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
v. (Plaintiffs have reported that they are finalizing settlement agreements with 3Mand A.W. Chesterton Co.)

h.) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

The Court finds that the issue of punitive damages must be resolved at a future date with regard to the entire MDL-875 action, and therefore any claims for punitive or exemplary damages are hereby SEVERED from this case and retained by the MDL-875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See In re Collins. 233 F.3d 809, 810 (3d Cir. 2000) ("It is responsible public policy to give priority to compensatory claims over exemplary punitive damage windfalls; this prudent conservation more than vindicates the Panel's decision to withhold punitive damage claims on remand."); see also In re Roberts. 178 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 1999).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 2011

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875

Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).

History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12 (see http://wwvv.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp) in 2008, the Court initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy to facilitate the processing of cases. The policy involves giving newly transferred cases scheduling orders; setting cases for settlement conferences; having motion hearings; and remanding trial-ready cases to transferor courts, or, in the alternative, holding trials in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (if so requested by the parties).

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

More information about the history of MDL 875 can be found on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's MDL 875 website at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875a.asp. Additionally, all Administrative Orders issued in this litigation (including current Orders and those no longer in effect) can be found at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp. Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presiding Officer on substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875n.asp1. This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case caption, subject matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends this spreadsheet to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those already addressed by the MDL-875 Court.

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

BUSHMAKER

A.W. CHESTERTON CO., et al.

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the Western

District of Wisconsin,

Case No. 09-00726

E.D. PA No. 10-61116

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

AND NOW, this 15th day of May, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that, upon review of the above captioned case under MDL-875 Administrative Order no. 18 (01-md-87 5, doc. no. 6197), the Court finds that, as to the above-captioned case:

a. ) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http: //www.paed.uscourts.gov/md!875d.asp).
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 13).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. The motions for summary judgment of defendants General Electric Co. and CBS Corporation were granted. See doc. nos. 172, 173.

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any motions trial-related in limine (including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial are:

i. Rapid American Corp.
ii. A.W. Chesterton Co.

h. ) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-captioned case should be REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin for resolution of all matters pending within this case except punitive damages.

The Court finds that the issue of punitive damages must be resolved at a future date with regard to the entire MDL-875 action, and therefore any claims for punitive or exemplary damages are hereby SEVERED from this case and retained by the MDL-875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See In re Collins. 233 F.3d 809, 810 (3d Cir. 2000) ("It is responsible public policy to give priority to compensatory claims over exemplary punitive damage windfalls; this prudent conservation more than vindicates the Panel's decision to withhold punitive damage claims on remand."); see also In re Roberts. 178 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 1999).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 20 11

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875 Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).

History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp ) in 2008, the Court initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy to facilitate the processing of cases. The policy involves giving newly transferred cases scheduling orders; setting cases for settlement conferences; having motion hearings; and remanding trial-ready cases to transferor courts, or, in the alternative, holding trials in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (if so requested by the parties).

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

More information about the history of MDL 875 can be found on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's MDL 875 website at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdI875a.asp. Additionally, all Administrative Orders issued in this litigation (including current Orders and those no longer in effect) can be found at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp.

Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presiding Officer on substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875n.aspl This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case caption, subject matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends this spreadsheet to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those already addressed by the MDL-875 Court.

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

GOEKEN

AC AND S, INC., et al

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the Central

District of Illinois

Case No. 99-01263

E.D. PA No. 2:lO-cv-68122

AND NOW, this 15th day of May, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that, upon review of the above captioned case under MDL-875 Administrative Order no. 18 (01-md-875, doc. no. 6197}, the Court finds that, as to the above-captioned case:

a.) Plaintiff has .complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.aov/mdl875d.asp).
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 4).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. The Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Ericsson, Inc. (doc. no. 197) was denied.

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any trial-related motions in limine (including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial are:

i. Ericsson, Inc. (Successor in Interest to Anaconda Corp.)
ii. Owens-Illinois Inc.

h. ) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Defendant Ericsson, Inc. argues that a suggestion of remand would be premature at this time due to the pendency of certain motions in limine. See doc. no. 199. However, Defendant's arguments are moot because the MDL Court has denied motions in limine without prejudice on the basis that Defendants could re-file their pre-trial motions in limine in the transferor court, which is best equipped to address such motions expeditiously in advance of trial.

vacated.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 2011

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875

Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://wvvw.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).

History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12 (see http://www.paed.useourts. gov/md18 75d.asp) in 2008, the Court initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy to facilitate the processing of cases. The policy involves giving newly transferred cases scheduling orders; setting cases for settlement conferences; having motion hearings; and remanding trial-ready cases to transferor courts, or, in the alternative, holding trials in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (if so requested by the parties).

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presiding Officer on substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875n.asp'). This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case caption, subject matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends this spreadsheet to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those already addressed by the MDL-875 Court.

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

ANDERSON, et al.

AC & S, INC., et al.

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the District

of Arizona, Case No. 94-00867

E.D. PA No. ll-cv-60006

a. ) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 5).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. No summary judgment motions were opposed.

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any motions trial-related in limine (including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial can found on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania docket.
h. ) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-captioned case should be REMANDED to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona for resolution of all matters pending within this case except punitive damages.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 2011

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875

Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp ).

History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

KING, et al.

A.O. SMITH CORP., et al.

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the Northern

District of California,

Case No. 10-CV-04921

E.D. PA No. ll-cv-60044

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

a. ) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http: //www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 16).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. No motions for summary judgment were opposed.

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any motions trial-related in limine (including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial can be found on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania docket.
h. ) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-captioned case should be REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for resolution of all matters pending within this case except punitive damages.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 2011

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875

Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).

History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presiding Officer on substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875n.asp'). This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case caption, subject matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends this spreadsheet to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those already addressed by the MDL-875 Court.

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

CHEEK

JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE, INC., et al.

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the District

of Maryland,

Case No. 11-00013

E.D. PA No. 2:ll-cv-60071

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that, upon review of the above captioned case under MDL-875 Administrative Order no. 18 (Ql-md-875, doc. no. 6197), the Court finds that, as to the above-captioned case:

a. ) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl87 5d.asp).
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 4).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. No motions for summary judgment were opposed.

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any motions trial-related in limine (including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial can be found on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania docket.
h. ) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-captioned case should be REMANDED to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for resolution of all matters pending within this case except punitive damages.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 2011

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875

Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).

History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Beginning with Administrative Order No. 12 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/rodl875d.asp) in 2008, the Court initiated an aggressive, pro-active policy to facilitate the processing of cases. The policy involves giving newly transferred cases scheduling orders; setting cases for settlement conferences; having motion hearings; and remanding trial-ready cases to transferor courts, or, in the alternative, holding trials in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (if so requested by the parties).

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presiding Officer on substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875n.asp ). This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case caption, subject matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends this spreadsheet to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those already addressed by the MDL-875 Court.

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

ANDERSON

AW CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al.

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the Eastern

District of Wisconsin,

Case No. 11-00061

E.D. PA No. 2:ll-cv-63482

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

a. ) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl8 7 5d.asp).
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 34).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. The motion for summary judgment of defendant Proctor & Gamble Co. was denied (see doc. no. 344).

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any remaining trial-related motions in. limine {including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial are:

i. Owens-Illinois Inc.
ii. Proctor & Gamble Co.

h. ) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-captioned case should be REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for resolution of all matters pending within this case except punitive damages.

The Court finds that the issue of punitive damages must be resolved at a future date with regard to the entire MDL-875 act ion, and therefore any claims for punitive or exemplary damages are hereby SEVERED from this case and retained by the MDL-875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See In re Collins, 233 F.3d 809, 810 (3d Cir. 2000) ("It is responsible public policy to give priority to compensatory claims over exemplary punitive damage windfalls; this prudent conservation more than vindicates the Panel's decision to withhold punitive damage claims on remand."); see also In re Roberts, 178 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 1999).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 2011

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875

Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).

History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

WRIGHT

A.W. CHESTERTON CO., et al.

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the Northern

District of Illinois,

Case No. ll-CV-01954

E.D. PA No. ll-cv-66748

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

a. ) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 18).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. The motions for summary judgment of CBS Corp. and John Crane, Inc. were denied (doc. nos. 244, 245).

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any trial-related motions in limine (including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial are:

i. John Crane Inc.
ii. CBS Corporation

h.) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

Accordingly, the Court SUGGESTS that the above-captioned case should be REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for resolution of all matters pending within this case except punitive damages.

The Court finds that the issue of punitive damages must be resolved at a future date with regard to the entire MDL-875 action, and therefore any claims for punitive or exemplary damages are hereby SEVERED from this case and retained by the MDL-875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See In re Collins. 233 F.3d 809, 810 (3d Cir. 2000) ("It is responsible public policy to give priority to compensatory claims over exemplary punitive damage windfalls; this prudent conservation more than vindicates the Panel's decision to withhold punitive damage claims on remand."); see also In re Roberts, 178 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 1999).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 2011

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875

Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).

History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presiding Officer on substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875n,aspl This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case caption, subject matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends this spreadsheet to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those already addressed by the MDL-875 Court.

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

GEHRT

AC & S, INC. et al.

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the Central

District of Illinois, Case

No. 96-02071

E.D. PA No. 2:08-cv-92066

SUGGESTION OF REMAND

The original Suggestion of Remand in this case incorrectly stated that Owens-Illinois, Inc. was a remaining defendant in this case.

AND NOW, this 21st day of May, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that, upon review of the above captioned case under MDL-875 Administrative Order no. 18 (01-md-875, doc. no. 6197), the Court finds that, as to the above-captioned case:

a. ) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl87 5d.asp).
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 4).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant CBS Corp. was granted in part and denied in part (doc. no. 265).

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any trial-related motions in limine (including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial are:

i. CBS Corporation
ii. Union Carbide Corporation

h.) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 2011

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875

Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/md1875d.asp).

History of MDL 875. In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presiding Officer on substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (see http://wvvw.paed.uscourts.gov/md1875n.asp). This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case caption, subject matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends this spreadsheet to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those already addressed by the MDL-875 Court.

Other options available to assist the Transferor Court with legal research include searchable databases created by LexisNexis and Westlaw. Directions on how to access these databases can be found on http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875n.asp.

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)

GOEKEN

AC AND S, INC., et al.

Consolidated Under

MDL DOCKET NO. 875

Transferred from the Central

District of Illinois

Case No. 99-01263

E.D. PA No. 2:10-cv-68122

AMENDED SUGGESTION OF REMAND

The original Suggestion of Remand in this case incorrectly stated that Owens-Illinois, Inc. was a remaining defendant in this case.

AND NOW, this 21st day of May, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that, upon review of the above captioned case under MDL-875 Administrative Order no. 18 (Ql-md-875, doc. no. 6197), the Court finds that, as to the above-captioned case:

a. ) Plaintiff has complied with MDL-875 Administrative Orders 12 and 12A (see the MDL 875 website's Administrative Orders page, at http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp) .
b. ) Parties have completed their obligations under the Rule 16 order issued by the Court (see doc. no. 4).
c. ) All discovery has been completed.
d. ) The Court has adjudicated all outstanding motions, including dispositive motions. Particularly relevant rulings include:

i. The Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Ericsson, Inc. (doc. no. 197) was denied.

e. ) Rule 18 settlement discussions have been exhausted at this time as to the remaining viable defendants.
f. ) The Court finds that this case is prepared for trial without delay once on the transferor court's docket, subject to any trial-related motions in limine (including Daubert challenges).
g. ) The remaining viable Defendants for trial are:

i. Ericsson, Inc. (Successor in Interest to Anaconda Corp.)

h. ) Any demand for punitive damages is severed, and claims for punitive or exemplary damages are retained by the MDL-875 Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SUGGESTION OF REMAND MEMORANDUM

Updated November 4, 2011

To: Transferor Judge

From: Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, Presiding Judicial Officer, MDL 875

Re: Asbestos case that has been transferred to your court

Status of the case that has been transferred from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

This case has been transferred back to the transferor court, from the MDL 875 Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Cases that are remanded to transferor courts are ordinarily ready for trial, pursuant to this Court's Administrative Order No. 18 (see http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/mdl875d.asp).

History of MDL 875, In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation

Resources available for transferor courts on the MDL 875 website

Also on the website is an Excel spreadsheet of all decisions issued by the Presiding Officer on substantive and procedural matters since 2008 (see http://www.paed.useourts.gov/mdl875n.asp'). This spreadsheet is updated regularly, and it can be sorted by jurisdiction, case caption, subject matter, party name, etc. It is also word searchable. The MDL-875 Court intends this spreadsheet to be a helpful resource for transferor courts addressing issues similar to those already addressed by the MDL-875 Court.

Contact information for the MDL 875 Court

The MDL 875 Court is ready, willing and able to assist the transferor court with any matters relating to the transfer of the case or any substantive or procedural issues that may arise.

Intercircuit Assignment Committee